AEG, including Kings. for sale

Bruckheimer's name has come up in the past with rumors of him being interested in a stake for a potential team/arena in Las Vegas. Although he'd most likely have interest investing in the Kings, I can't see him being interested in absorbing the entire AEG entity.

Not to mention Regal Cinemas. Some of those are partnerships and AEG is also involved in a ton of arena management all around the globe. And the above list is just some of the entities that AEG owns or invests in.

In re: your list...how can AEG own two MLS teams? Something not right there.

Gee...the drama queens are already out in force screaming bloody hell and it can't be good..blah blah blah. a deal this huge is so complex and may take years to close so to cry the sky is falling at this point in time about the next owner is simply premature to say the least.

The Dodgers got sold for over $2 billion in less than three months. If a suitable buyer comes along, I don't see it lasting "years." The L.A. philanthropist the Times wrote about is worth over $7 billion, apparently.

The MLS permits the ownership of multiple teams. Anschutz actually used to own (or be partners) quite a few MLS clubs. It's like an investment into the league.

Quote:

He then began investing in entertainment companies, co-founding Major League Soccer as well as multiple teams, including the Los Angeles Galaxy, Chicago Fire, Houston Dynamo, San Jose Earthquakes, and the New York / New Jersey Metro Stars.

In re: your list...how can AEG own two MLS teams? Something not right there.

When MLS was close to going under, AEG bought up a few teams from people fleeing, and at one time ownded 5 of the 8 teams (he saved the league and is why the Championship trophy is named after him). He has since sold of some of them. And Houston might be coming off the list before this sale as he is only a 50% owner (with De La Hoya and another) and the owner of the Rockets is looking to take that reportedly.

I remember a little while back, someone made a claim that the seasons could have started even if a CBA was not in place. Does anyone know what is holding this idea back?

Greed and Gary Bettman is what is holding that idea back. They'd rather give up building momentum off a $3.3B industry in order to gain a lump sum of cash back by taking a share of the players' salaries back, whether it be by escrow or rollbacks.

Not sure if this belongs in a thread discussing a change in Kings' ownership though. And a possible name has emerged.

Anyone but Jerry Buss! I recall Sony being one of the rumored suitors that the Kings were going to be sold to prior to AEG/Majestic buying the team.

Who has deep enough pockets to purchase the entire AEG entity? He's not selling them as individual pieces (which may make the sale of the team seem more feasible). It's going to take some tycoon to purchase AEG, and I would hope it won't be the meddling type who will have his hands all over the team. The hands off approach works best. Just so long as the new owner is committed to building a winner and maintains a first class operation.

I'm not worried. One mega rich dude isn't going to buy 8 teams and 5 arenas. It's going to have to be a corporation imo. The Kings are looking good with record season seat sales and a very bright future.

Gee...the drama queens are already out in force screaming bloody hell and it can't be good..blah blah blah. a deal this huge is so complex and may take years to close so to cry the sky is falling at this point in time about the next owner is simply premature to say the least.

Some of us care enough to have have foresight and have seen teams like the Dodgers have bad owner after owner or see guys like Wang buy teams with ulterior motives and not give a **** about the team.

The same firm is brought in to sell the team sold the Dodgers in months with a owner who was being forced to sell.

That must be why you are only a Tru fan and not a true fan. Come back when you earn your e.

I remember a little while back, someone made a claim that the seasons could have started even if a CBA was not in place. Does anyone know what is holding this idea back?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Greed and Gary Bettman is what is holding that idea back. They'd rather give up building momentum off a $3.3B industry in order to gain a lump sum of cash back by taking a share of the players' salaries back, whether it be by escrow or rollbacks.

I beg to differ Ziggy.

The last time the league allowed a season to start without a CBA in place was 1991-1992, when both sides agreed to play under the terms of the expired CBA which had expired prior to the start of the season.

The players, led by Bob Goodenow for the first time after taking over from Alan Eagleson just a year earlier, elected to wait until April 1st, 1992, or about 10 days before the start of the playoffs, and then they went on strike.

As a result, the players effectively held the playoffs hostage and were able to gain a lot of power over the owners a result. After striking for 10 days, the players ended up getting a lot of their demands met.

Since then, the NHL has had a CBA expire without an extension three times, once in 1994, once in 2004, and again this month. Each time the owners have refused to start a season without a new CBA in place, and for good reason. After what the players did the last time around, it'd be foolish to start a new season without a CBA in place.

Ironically, the 1992 strike helped lead to Bettman's hiring. Then NHL President JohnZeigler was fired by the owners after the strike, and was replaced by Gil Stein for just one year. Stein's biggest accomplishments in his one year legacy was the implimentation of paid suspensions (where a player would get suspended but still get paid. Doug Gilmour's arm-breaking slash on Tomas Sandstrom was the most well-known of these) and getting himself inducted into the HHOF. I believe that his induction into the Hall has since been overturned, but I'm not 100% sure on that. After a year of Stein's ineptitude, the NHL brought in Bettman.

As for the AEG sale, I find it funny that some are calling AEG down or saying this is a 'dick' move. I want AEG to stay as owners as well, they are fairly hands off as far as owners go and let DL spend to the cap ceiling, so we have a chance to ice a competitor annually, not to mention they showed a lot more patience than most owners in allowing the team to do a proper rebuild, even if it mention a six year stretch with no playoff hockey. This is however their team to do with as they wish and they have zero obligation to hold onto the team if they don't feel the need to. They have other goals right now to pursue and they wish to do so, that's their choice. It is not a 'dick' move, it is their absolute right, just like it's our right to sell anything we own.

As for the AEG sale, I find it funny that some are calling AEG down or saying this is a 'dick' move. I want AEG to stay as owners as well, they are fairly hands off as far as owners go and let DL spend to the cap ceiling, so we have a chance to ice a competitor annually, not to mention they showed a lot more patience than most owners in allowing the team to do a proper rebuild, even if it mention a six year stretch with no playoff hockey. This is however their team to do with as they wish and they have zero obligation to hold onto the team if they don't feel the need to. They have other goals right now to pursue and they wish to do so, that's their choice. It is not a 'dick' move, it is their absolute right, just like it's our right to sell anything we own.

AEG bought the Kings to build Staples. There has been plenty of well deserved backlash at them over the years. They have defended themselves with lines like "nobody wants to win the Stanley Cup more than us" , about how Anschutz's wife is a big Kings fan, etc

As far as being "hands off" they were anything but that before Lombardi and Lombardi himself was warned by others that the management group has a history of ditching rebuilds mid-term.

Remember AEG has owned the team since 1995....it isn't a secret that both McMaster and Taylor were told to make certain moves by AEG.

As far as spending to the cap, from memory, they have only done it once in 2005. If you remember coming out of the lockout their MO was going to be to spend wisely and when the cap went down they were going to poach stars from the free spending teams like the Rangers.

True, it is their right to sell the team. I am calling their timing a dick move. And IMO, it is

I remember a little while back, someone made a claim that the seasons could have started even if a CBA was not in place. Does anyone know what is holding this idea back?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Greed and Gary Bettman is what is holding that idea back. They'd rather give up building momentum off a $3.3B industry in order to gain a lump sum of cash back by taking a share of the players' salaries back, whether it be by escrow or rollbacks.

Not sure if this belongs in a thread discussing a change in Kings' ownership though. And a possible name has emerged.

The last time the league allowed a season to start without a CBA in place was 1991-1992, when both sides agreed to play under the terms of the expired CBA which had expired prior to the start of the season.

The players, led by Bob Goodenow for the first time after taking over from Alan Eagleson just a year earlier, elected to wait until April 1st, 1992, or about 10 days before the start of the playoffs, and then they went on strike.

As a result, the players effectively held the playoffs hostage and were able to gain a lot of power over the owners a result. After striking for 10 days, the players ended up getting a lot of their demands met.

Since then, the NHL has had a CBA expire without an extension three times, once in 1994, once in 2004, and again this month. Each time the owners have refused to start a season without a new CBA in place, and for good reason. After what the players did the last time around, it'd be foolish to start a new season without a CBA in place.

Ironically, the 1992 strike helped lead to Bettman's hiring. Then NHL President JohnZeigler was fired by the owners after the strike, and was replaced by Gil Stein for just one year. Stein's biggest accomplishments in his one year legacy was the implimentation of paid suspensions (where a player would get suspended but still get paid. Doug Gilmour's arm-breaking slash on Tomas Sandstrom was the most well-known of these) and getting himself inducted into the HHOF. I believe that his induction into the Hall has since been overturned, but I'm not 100% sure on that. After a year of Stein's ineptitude, the NHL brought in Bettman.

As for the AEG sale, I find it funny that some are calling AEG down or saying this is a 'dick' move. I want AEG to stay as owners as well, they are fairly hands off as far as owners go and let DL spend to the cap ceiling, so we have a chance to ice a competitor annually, not to mention they showed a lot more patience than most owners in allowing the team to do a proper rebuild, even if it mention a six year stretch with no playoff hockey. This is however their team to do with as they wish and they have zero obligation to hold onto the team if they don't feel the need to. They have other goals right now to pursue and they wish to do so, that's their choice. It is not a 'dick' move, it is their absolute right, just like it's our right to sell anything we own.

To add to this. Totally forgot about the players doing this in 92. Fehr used this tactic in 1994 in the MLB strike too costing the league the entire playoffs. After having seen it twice in two different sports its actually a smart move by the owners.

AEG bought the Kings to build Staples. There has been plenty of well deserved backlash at them over the years. They have defended themselves with lines like "nobody wants to win the Stanley Cup more than us" , about how Anschutz's wife is a big Kings fan, etc

As far as being "hands off" they were anything but that before Lombardi and Lombardi himself was warned by others that the management group has a history of ditching rebuilds mid-term.

Remember AEG has owned the team since 1995....it isn't a secret that both McMaster and Taylor were told to make certain moves by AEG.

As far as spending to the cap, from memory, they have only done it once in 2005. If you remember coming out of the lockout their MO was going to be to spend wisely and when the cap went down they were going to poach stars from the free spending teams like the Rangers.

True, it is their right to sell the team. I am calling their timing a dick move. And IMO, it is

As I said, they are more hands off than most ownerships. I never said they were entirely hands off, and neither should they be. If I owned the Kings I'd be at least somewhat hands on too, and not just because I'm a fan. It might be a sport to us, but it's a business to them.

The Kings have had the following payrolls since the cap came into place for the 2005-2006 season:

*The Kings were able to go above the salary cap in 2011-2012 due to LTIR, which can only be used if you spend to the cap ceiling and someone is injured and qualifies for LTIR status.

It should be noted that the above numbers do NOT include bonus monies paid by the team. Those are applied I believe the following year somehow to the teams cap structure, but I'm not exactly sure how those are calculated, so I left them out. Bonuses weren't as easy to find for each year either, though it should be noted that, according to capgeek, the Kings paid over $9 million total in bonuses during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons.

I also left off the Kings payroll for 2008-2009 because I couldn't find a conclusive final cap number for the Kings. Capgeek didn't list that per team, just rosters and cap hits, but those cap hits are for a full season for all players and aren't broken down to reflect the true cap impact of players such as Matt Moulson (who was mostly in Manchester that year) or Jason Labarbera (who was traded mid-season). The link to the roster on capgeek is here: http://www.capgeek.com/archive/team....7&year_id=2008

Needless to say, the Kings were a lower spending team that year though, and I don't dispute that.

All of that said, the Kings have spent to within roughly 10 per cent of the cap every year but two years, 2007-2008 and (most likely) 2008-2009. Considering DL has made a habit of trying to leave cap space available in case of injuries, etc. at the start of the season, spending to within 10% of the cap likely reflects that, at least in part. Additionally, as I illustrated in another thread, the Kings in the six years leading up to the cap (all under AEG) were in the upper half of the league in payrolls and twice were a top 10 payroll team, despite not having a salary cap.

AEG has been more than fair with their salary disribution througout the years and have afforded DL (and DT before him) more salary flexibility than most other organizations. The Kings were built by DL, on a plan that he laid out, and when the Kings were set to go for the cup (which according to DL's five year plan was actually 2010-2011) AEG spent big ($55.3 million) and did so again the following year despite mixed results from 2010-2011.

Finally, I don't think the timing is a dick move at all. A dick move would be announcing it at the end of the regular season or during the playoffs. Considering that the Mayor knew of this for 'months' AEG may have done the Kings a favor by waiting until the regular season, playoffs and cup celebrations were over before announcing this, rather than creating a scene around the team at a crucial point.

To add to this. Totally forgot about the players doing this in 92. Fehr used this tactic in 1994 in the MLB strike too costing the league the entire playoffs. After having seen it twice in two different sports its actually a smart move by the owners.

Yep. I actually meant to post this as well, but forgot to. Got on a Gary Bettman segway

To get burned by Goodenow hurt, but to risk going down the same road with Fehr would be just insane. As much as I hate the lockout, I don't blame the owners at all with their stance.

As I said, they are more hands off than most ownerships. I never said they were entirely hands off, and neither should they be. If I owned the Kings I'd be at least somewhat hands on too, and not just because I'm a fan. It might be a sport to us, but it's a business to them.

The Kings have had the following payrolls since the cap came into place for the 2005-2006 season:

*The Kings were able to go above the salary cap in 2011-2012 due to LTIR, which can only be used if you spend to the cap ceiling and someone is injured and qualifies for LTIR status.

I was more right than you realize.
They were only 10% under the cap one time 2005 and finished 2
Payroll shrank yearly and bottomed out in 2008. You left that number out , but the Kings were heading in to the season under the floor until they picked up Sean Odie on waivers.
They would have been under the 10 percent mark last year if they didn't pickup Penner at the deadline.

Quote:

AEG has been more than fair with their salary disribution througout the years and have afforded DL (and DT before him) more salary flexibility than most other organizations. The Kings were built by DL, on a plan that he laid out, and when the Kings were set to go for the cup (which according to DL's five year plan was actually 2010-2011) AEG spent big ($55.3 million) and did so again the following year despite mixed results from 2010-2011.

I think you are forgetting the cash budgets Lombardi referred back in the dark years.
I agree that AEG did pony up at this season and at the end of last season , but that is more than erased by 2006-2009

Quote:

Finally, I don't think the timing is a dick move at all. A dick move would be announcing it at the end of the regular season or during the playoffs. Considering that the Mayor knew of this for 'months' AEG may have done the Kings a favor by waiting until the regular season, playoffs and cup celebrations were over before announcing this, rather than creating a scene around the team at a crucial point.

I can't think of a single corporate owned sports franchise that has enjoyed success. They've all been a mess. Look at Disney when they owned the Ducks and Angels, or Time-Warner who owned the Hawks and Thrashers, as RonSwanson already mentioned, Rupert Murdoch's Fox/Newscorp and their ownership of the Dodgers. They've all ended in failure.

I can't think of a single corporate owned sports franchise that has enjoyed success. They've all been a mess. Look at Disney when they owned the Ducks and Angels, or Time-Warner who owned the Hawks and Thrashers, as RonSwanson already mentioned, Rupert Murdoch's Fox/Newscorp and their ownership of the Dodgers. They've all ended in failure.